2014-07-07 FCST: NY

[calvinkaskey]

SPC has a fairly high prob of wind damage for portions of New York and an increased tornado risk. Capes look low this morning, low . Sun should warm some portions of New York and increase instability. Lapse rates for the low and mid levels are faily low though. Winds aloft are fairly strong. SPC maybe overdoing it.

 

[Royce Sheibal]

Make sure to format your titles as "2014-7-7 FCST: NY" or the mods will not be happy with you. As for the prediction I think the tor estimates are probably a bit over shot in NY, as I saw little to no indication on the models that any low level helicity existed, however there is good upper level support for a wind event, and given the current MESO that the SPC has issued I wouldn't be suprised to see a watch here soon.

 

[calvinkaskey]

yesterday

Make sure to format your titles as "2014-7-7 FCST: NY" or the mods will not be happy with you. As for the prediction I think the tor estimates are probably a bit over shot in NY, as I saw little to no indication on the models that any low level helicity existed, however there is good upper level support for a wind event, and given the current MESO that the SPC has issued I wouldn't be suprised to see a watch here soon.

There were two persistant cells to the west of Binghamton that showed signs on radar and visually of rotation.

 

[Royce Sheibal]

I'm not an expert for forecasting in Upstate NY, but the main difference between a tornado forecast and a rotating supercell forecast with wind/hail relies heavily on low level mosture content. Around here (Eastern Nebraska) we get a lot of wonderful rotating supercells and mini-supercells with clear low level rotation, but will it drop a tor? The forecast will depend on ML-LCL being <1250m (some people use 1000m), t-td speads being low, high precipitable water content, and good SRH 0-1km. Some people will even take close look at mixing ratios and wet bulb temps. I didn't think you'd get tors on the 7th because low level shear was poor and moisture was a little too low. Any NY state experts have any other input?

 

[calvinkaskey]

I got what basically looks like a tornado on video on the 13th of this month. The NWS standards for being a tornado are pretty high. I wouldn't be surprised in half the tornadoes aren't counted. It's definitely a funnel and looks like it is pretty low to the ground. I called 911 but the SPC shows no record of it being called in.

 

[Rick Schmidt]

I would not call 911 to make a tornado report......only when a tornado has caused structural damage or injuries are suspected. You should call your local NWS office to make a report of that nature. I am guessing the main or only standard the NWS has for officially recording a tornado is confirmation of a touchdown, or damage. I had heard reports of a tornado on the ground in Atchison, Ks. on June 29, only to find out that was false. (I could not find confirmation of a touchdown from any source). I would recommend taking any video of a suspected tornado to your local NWS office, and have them watch it. I have done that a few times here in Topeka. They are very pleased when someone comes in to show confirmation of a tornado when nobody else has confirmed one.

 

[John Bowles]

The NWS deals with people reporting scud as tornadoes/funnel clouds all the time, and a few of the videos on your youtube channel look very scuddy. Are you sure they're being too strict?

If you didn't report it to the NWS, the chances of them never getting it at all are pretty high. Unconfirmed reports from the general public relayed through other sources are not weighted highly.

I fully understand the desire to see things worth reporting, especially in an area where they're pretty rare. Its easy and very tempting to jump the gun. The mantra of most skywarn nets is "No report is better than a bad report". Take the time to get a good look at what you're seeing, and make sure its really what you think it is. If you're not sure, lean towards not reporting. If you're feeding the NWS information that doesn't mesh with what they're seeing, they will tend to be skeptical. If you're doing this regularly, they may consider your reports unreliable.

 

[calvinkaskey]

It's hard to say tornadoes are rare in New York state unless one actually chases for them. If a tornado lasts only a minute or so and only causes f-0 or f-1 damage or just tree damage it seems very unlikely to be reported unless there are pictures and videos. I suspect that rotation and atmospheric conditions could help clarify the possibility of much larger tornado numbers. I've looked at a lot of 911 reports from spc and it seems like some NWS locations are more or less likely to record severe weather. It shouldn't be the public's job to do all the work for the NWS when they drive around to confirm tornadoes.

 

[rdale]

If a tornado lasts only a minute or so and only causes f-0 or f-1 damage or just tree damage it seems very unlikely to be reported unless there are pictures and videos.

That's the case everywhere.

I suspect that rotation and atmospheric conditions could help clarify the possibility of much larger tornado numbers.

I don't know what that means.

It shouldn't be the public's job to do all the work for the NWS when they drive around to confirm tornadoes.

I'll let that one sit there as a gentle note that when you don't know what you're talking about, don't word things in a way that sound insulting to those who do know...

 

[Shawn Schuman]

I got what basically looks like a tornado on video on the 13th of this month. The NWS standards for being a tornado are pretty high. I wouldn't be surprised in half the tornadoes aren't counted. It's definitely a funnel and looks like it is pretty low to the ground. I called 911 but the SPC shows no record of it being called in.

A tornado is a strongly rotating column of air that is in contact with the ground. That's quite literally the definition; if it isn't contacting the ground, or if you can't verify that it's contacting the ground, then you can't confidently say that it's a tornado. I've seen funnels that seemed to be practically scraping the ground, yet since there wasn't an obvious circulation at the ground I would not consider it a tornado (neither would the NWS, and rightfully so). I've also seen scud formations that were virtually indistinguishable from a ragged funnel cloud/tornado - unless you had a good view of the ground and could see it clearly wasn't in contact.

The point being the NWS has standards for a reason. Do some tornadoes, particularly small/brief ones, go unreported because of these standards? Without question. But countless other tornado-lookalikes are also kept out of the official tally. If the NWS were more lax in accepting sketchy reports, we'd have the exact opposite problem: a huge number of "tornadoes" that actually turn out to be scud, funnels aloft, etc. We already have enough problems with tornado reports that turn out to be false (remember that surge of reported "rain-wrapped wedges" in June that never verified?), I can only imagine how bad it'd be if the NWS were to suddenly be even less discerning in accepting reports.

It's hard to say tornadoes are rare in New York state unless one actually chases for them. If a tornado lasts only a minute or so and only causes f-0 or f-1 damage or just tree damage it seems very unlikely to be reported unless there are pictures and videos. I suspect that rotation and atmospheric conditions could help clarify the possibility of much larger tornado numbers. I've looked at a lot of 911 reports from spc and it seems like some NWS locations are more or less likely to record severe weather. It shouldn't be the public's job to do all the work for the NWS when they drive around to confirm tornadoes.

Not really. It depends on your definition of "rare," I suppose, but it should be quite clear from a meteorological perspective that tornadoes are much less common in New York than they are in more tornado-prone areas. Tornadoes are more common everywhere than statistics might indicate because of underreporting in rural areas, but I don't think that has much impact on the relative rarity of tornadoes in a given area compared to other areas.

 

[John Bowles]

It's hard to say tornadoes are rare in New York state unless one actually chases for them. If a tornado lasts only a minute or so and only causes f-0 or f-1 damage or just tree damage it seems very unlikely to be reported unless there are pictures and videos. I suspect that rotation and atmospheric conditions could help clarify the possibility of much larger tornado numbers. I've looked at a lot of 911 reports from spc and it seems like some NWS locations are more or less likely to record severe weather. It shouldn't be the public's job to do all the work for the NWS when they drive around to confirm tornadoes.

And how do they know where to do a storm survey if you don't tell them you saw anything?

An F-1 can lift a roof off a house, or toss a mobile home across a field. Aren't you the one who was earlier suggesting the NWS shouldn't bother issuing watches or warnings on days likely to only generate those tornadoes? (How you determine that ahead of time is another question...)